Thursday, November 17, 2011

THE whitewash begins. Now that the carbon tax has passed through federal parliament, the government's clean-up brigade is getting into the swing by trying to erase any dissent against the jobs-destroying legislation.
On cue comes the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which this week issued warnings to businesses that they will face whopping fines of up to $1.1m if they blame the carbon tax for price rises.

It says it has been "directed by the Australian government to undertake a compliance and enforcement role in relation to claims made about the impact of a carbon price."

Businesses are not even allowed to throw special carbon tax sales promotions before the tax arrives on July 1.

"Beat the Carbon Tax - Buy Now" or "Buy now before the carbon tax bites" are sales pitches that are verboten. Or at least, as the ACCC puts it, "you should be very cautious about making these types of claims".

There will be 23 carbon cops roaming the streets doing snap audits of businesses that "choose to link your price increases to a carbon price".

Instead, the ACCC suggests you tell customers you've raised prices because "the overall cost of running (your) business has increased".

It's all very Orwellian: the tax whose name cannot be spoken. We are already paying for the climate-change hysteria that has gripped Australia for a decade. Replacing even a portion of our cheap, coal-fired power with renewable energy is hellishly expensive. It also requires costly adaptation of existing infrastructure.

That's a big reason why electricity prices have hit the roof already. So when we accelerate the process with the carbon tax, the pain will escalate. That's the whole point of carbon pricing. A record number of households have had their electricity disconnected because they can't pay their power bills.

Household energy costs are estimated to have risen 17 per cent since July, with the result that the ranks of the energy poor are swelling.

In NSW, the Energy and Water Ombudsman has reported an 18 per cent increase in complaints from people whose electricity has been disconnected.

Then there are all the little immeasurables. For instance, last winter the price of Lebanese cucumbers in NSW skyrocketed because soaring energy costs forced the biggest grower to shut off heat lamps in some of his growing sheds. Result: fewer cucumbers - so prices rose to meet demand.

But no matter how Orwellian the tactics, no matter how many carbon cops are sent into hairdressing salons to interrogate barbers on the precise nature of their price rises, the truth remains: Australia has gone out on a limb, imposing a carbon tax that will send businesses to the wall, cause undue hard-

ship to families, and tether Australians more tightly to government handouts.

And soon, we will send billions of dollars overseas to buy useless pieces of paper called carbon credits. Invest-ment bankers, lawyers and carbon traders will get rich, as will all the usual spivs and scam artists ready to stick a bucket under the government spigot raining taxpayer cash.

It doesn't matter how many fairy stories the Greens tell about how the carbon tax will "save" the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu. Or how many gullible people believe hurricanes, floods and earthquakes are the result of man-made global warming. Eventually, the truth will out.

Even the International Panel on Climate Change, whose bureaucrat-written summaries cherrypick the most alarming scientific forecasts, is holding back in the face of runaway alarmist rhetoric from politicians.

In fact, leaked draft copies of the IPCC's latest special report into "Extreme Events and Disasters" reveal declining scientific certainty about the threat of human-produced greenhouse gases.

The rising toll of extreme weather events cannot be blamed on greenhouse gas emissions, according to Black, who has seen the draft.

"Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability," says the IPCC report. In other words, the effect of human-produced greenhouse gas on the climate is insignificant when compared to natural climate change.

Since he's dropped in for 26 hours, US President Barack Obama could explain to his new best friend Julia Gillard why he decided not to impose a carbon tax on his ailing economy. Or why Canada has prudently ruled out a carbon scheme, and New Zealand is scaling its back and China and India continue to sit on their hands. Durban will be fun.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

The Microfit program in Ontario is pretty well on track-
In terms of feasibility, those people that have optimal sun exposure can definitely MAKE money at todays low interest rates. We pay an average of 19 cents per kwh. If the government wants to PAY us a guaranteed rate of 80 cents for 20 years, the initial investment could very well pay for itself well within that time frame... the rest is gravy.

Why should the power consumers provide that gravy?

If more people used solar panels that provided energy back to the grid, the huge benefit to society, and the world, would be a MUCH lower carbon footprint and LESS need for new fossil fuel generating stations or even nuclear power plants. And that is a VERY GOOD thing.

First, solar microFIT is NOT providing net energy to the grid. Over the course of the year, a home uses more power than the panels can provide. So what we are in essence doing is paying people a huge amount of money to get off the grid. Second, in Ontario we are producing MORE CO2 because of solar and wind. This is because coal fired plants will NEVER be replaced by wind and solar, and wind and solar require natural gas fired generation as backup when there is no wind and no sun. So Ontario is relying MORE on fossil fuels because of wind and solar. Besides, more CO2 is not causing any harm to the enviroment, in spite of the scare mongering by the AGW faithful.

I only wish that all countries had generous microfit programs and that they continued them from year to year and not just according to the whims of different political parties.

And put people into fuel poverty? Explain how that is benificial.

Of course, the MAIN thing to encourage is geo-exchange heating and cooling. At a 400% efficiency rating and eliminating the need for fossil fuels to heat our buildings (plus is cools at double the efficiency of regular air conditioners)this in itself would give the economy and the environment the biggest bang for the buck.These systems run on a small amount of electricity, and this electricity requirement can easily be covered by the power generated by about a 10kw solar setup with lots left over (for the average household) to meet the rest of electrical demand. Sorry Richard, you're not right on this one.

I did exactly that. I spend $30,000 putting in a geoexchange system when NG price was 14c and looked to go higher. Now I spend MORE per month to cool and heat my home because of power increases than if I stayed on NG which is now 4c. Yes, geoexchange is superior, but only if power rates make it so. With power going up in price geoexchange is becoming too expensive to opperate.

The Government Giveth and the Government Taketh Away –-Famous green proverb

Ministers have been accused of destroying 25,000 jobs and "bankrupting a whole industry", after the Government unveiled plans to slash subsidies for green energy. Hundreds of solar companies are likely to go bust by Christmas after the Department for Energy and Climate Change confirmed it is looking to halve subsidies for new panels. --Rowena Mason, The Daily Telegraph, 1 November 2011

The row over solar subsidies is the latest manifestation of a long and fierce battle within the government between Chris Huhne's DECC and George Osborne's Treasury over the role of green growth in the UK's economic recovery, made especially pointed by soaring home energy bills. "We may be out of touch with the solar lobby, but we are not out of touch with energy bills," Barker told parliament on Monday. --Damian Carrington, The Guardian, 31 October 2011

At a time when household savers are struggling to get a 0.5 per cent return on an instant access saving account, some of these renewable energy subsidies – paid in the form of generous payments for the electricity produced, so called feed-in tariffs (FITs) - are guaranteeing annual returns of 10 per cent. It’s one of the biggest wealth transfers – from millions of ordinary hard-working tax payers to a few hundred of the hugely wealthy – in British history. It’s staggeringly unfair and, in the growing opinion of many, totally pointless. --Benny Peiser, Daily Mail, 9 June 2011

Silicon Valley's green geek scenario, which we can date at around 2005-2009 is now gurgling down the WC pan of history. Its elitist and totally unreal notions of extreme high priced electric cars for Nice People Saving the Planet, and designer Low Energy homes for the same Nice People, and nobody else, has gone down the tube. --Andrew McKillop, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 31 October 2011

Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy on Sunday, just a year after the energy storage company received a $43 million loan guarantee from a controversial Department of Energy program. The bankruptcy comes about two months after Solyndra -- a solar panel maker with a $535 million loan guarantee -- also filed for Chapter 11, creating a political embarrassment for the administration of President Barack Obama, which has championed the loans as a way to create "green energy" jobs. –Reuters, 31 October 2011

Here’s the kicker: Market-driven energy choices are cutting more tons of CO2 in the U.S. than have been cut by wind and solar—even with their billions of dollars in subsidies. Natural gas-fired electricity generation has grown from 15.8 percent of America’s power generation in 2000 to 24.1 percent in the most recent 12-month tally from the Energy Information Administration. That 8.3 percent increase is enough to cut 120 million metric tons of CO2 per year compared to coal. Over the same span, wind- and solar-generated power grew to 2.75 percent of total power generation. That would cut CO2 by 108 million metric tons per year compared to coal power. So over the past decade, hugely subsidized wind and solar have done less to cut CO2 emissions than market-driven natural gas production. –-David Kreutzer, The Foundry, 25 October 2011

In Britain, once in the vanguard of action on climate change, the government is scaling back its green energy investment... Nobody expects a UN climate deal in Durban this year — nor next year, nor the year after. But meanwhile the coal keeps burning. Global production is set to rise by 35 percent in the coming decade, according to industry analysts. The cheapest, most abundant and dirtiest of all the fossil fuels is extending its grip on the world's energy supply system. And nowhere more so than just up the coast from Durban. --Fred Pearce, The Guardian, 31 October 2011

We have to put shale in the context of other energy sources in order to convey a comparative analysis of the environmental impact. People forget the environmental costs of coal mining or oil exploration; nuclear also has its own risks. Natural gas is a form of energy that falls into the low risk category. Can the green lobby win the shale debate over environmental objections? I don’t think it can. Ten or 20 years ago it could have won when governments were willing to burn billions, but the economic climate has changed, we’re facing the biggest crisis in decades. No government in the world would give up this opportunity, not even the British government, which is very green indeed. --Benny Peiser, Natural Gas Europe, 25 October 2011

Ministers have been accused of destroying 25,000 jobs and "bankrupting a whole industry", after the Government unveiled plans to slash subsidies for green energy. Hundreds of solar companies are likely to go bust by Christmas after the Department for Energy and Climate Change confirmed it is looking to halve subsidies for new panels.

Greg Barker, minister for climate change, said the "feed-in tariff" subsidies are currently too generous, because the cost of installing solar panels has fallen.

The proposed cuts, due to come into force from December, will see the amount earned from each panel fall from 43.3p per kilowatt hour of solar power to 21p. This will save energy customers around £23 a year - or £700m in total - because the subsidies are funded through electricity bills.

However, the industry warned that many home owners and companies may immediately back away from the flagship scheme because it wouldn now take up to 25 years to earn back their investments.

Gaynor Hartnell, chief executive of the Renewable Energy Association, said: "The installation rate is likely to fall drastically, and many of the 25,000 newly-employed in this industry may end up joining the dole queue."

The announcement also came on the same day as Prime Minister David Cameron unveiled plans to spend £950 million on creating 37,000 new jobs and safeguarding thousands of others.

But Daniel Green, chief executive of Home Sun, a solar company, accused the Prime Minister of betraying his trust after giving him two personal assurances of his support for the growing solar industry.

"They have effectively bankrupted thousands of companies, including 25,000 jobs," he said. "Most of them will be gone before Christmas. We built a business on the back of David Cameron's promises. He has betrayed us twice. Anybody thinking of investing in government-sponsored green opportunities, I would advise them to run away.

"All my business will stop with immediate effect if this goes through. It's an extremely black day."

A coalition of business groups and charities is considering whether to launch a judicial review against the Government's proposals, which are now subject to consultation.

Howard Johns, of the Cut Don’t Kill campaign in support of solar power, said: “Such deep cuts to the tariff would kill the UK solar industry stone dead. We are happy to accept some cuts, but the Government must recognise that wiping out 4,000 companies and 25,000 jobs by cutting too deeply would be an appalling waste of economic potential."

However, the Government insisted that the cuts to subsidies had been needed as companies were making too high a return on the panels. Greg Barker, climate change minister, said the cost of a solar panel had fallen from £13,000 to £9,000 since the scheme started up.

He added: "Although I fully realise that adjusting to the new lower tariffs will be a big challenge for many firms, it won’t come as a surprise to many in the solar industry who’ve themselves acknowledged the big fall in costs and the big increase in their rate of return over the past year.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

TORONTO — Ontario residents could end up paying some of the highest costs for electricity in the developing world because providing wind and solar energy will cost about 40 per cent more than government estimates, according to a new study.

Ratepayers should expect their electricity bills to rise by 65 per cent by 2015 and 141 per cent by 2030 — substantially more than current government predictions of 46 per cent and 100 per cent, the study found.

The average residential user’s annual bill, which currently stands at $1,700, will exceed $2,800 by 2015 and be over $4,100 by 2030, it predicts.

In spite of their having campaigned tirelessly over the last few decades for more expensive and less efficient forms of energy production — ‘sustainable energy’ — many of a greenish hue are getting heated up about about UK energy market regulator OFGEM’s latest report. The Left Foot Forward blog reports,

Outrage at 733 per cent rise in energy companies’ profits

There was anger today at the news this morning that energy companies’profits had soared eight-fold from £15 to £125 per customer per year.Friends of the Earth said it was “outrageous” the energy fat cats were raking in the profits while people face “rocketing” bills and “shiver in cold homes”.

As discussed here recently, it’s just a bit rich that FoE are complaining about rising energy prices. Few organisations have done more to make using energy more difficult for poorer people in the UK than FoE.

Rising bills and increasing levels of ‘fuel poverty’ have embarrassed the UK government. And perhaps for the first time, the UK public is finding itself exposed to the realities of climate change policies. In other words, climate change policies just got political. They are now part of people’s daily lives, exactly as the green NGOs wanted. Now everybody has to think before they turn their lights and heating on. Everybody is now forced to think of ways to cut their fuel consumption. And as a consequence, Quangos, NGOs, government departments, and their ministers past and present are trying to distance themselves from those consequences, by pretending to champion the interests of the consumer. “It wasn’t us”, they scream.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

I request that you initiate a criminal investigation and a public inquiry into the Ontario Smart Meter initiative, which your government introduced. This legislation and the careless way that it was implemented may have been the most harmful and wasteful political decision ever made in Ontario.

Smart Meters have now been installed in virtually every Ontario home. When transmitting information about energy usage, they emit strong bursts of microwave radiation. In some homes those bursts may be every few minutes, in others it may be every few seconds, depending on location and distance to the wireless receiving point. There are thousands of scientific studies that show that electro magnetic radiation, such as is transmitted from Smart Meters, causes a vast array of adverse biological effects, even at low exposure levels. Many of those studies have been referenced in The Bioinitiative Report, which can be located at http://www.bioinitiative.org/ .

Many Smart Meters have been thoughtlessly installed on places where strong bursts of microwave radiation penetrate walls and expose residents to considerable radiation inside their homes. These installations have been done without consideration for the health and safety of the residents. I have seen dangerous installations on bedroom walls, living room walls, kitchen walls, and in basements, where residents are subjected to high exposure levels. On some homes and apartment buildings, several meters have been installed together, causing even higher exposure and more significant danger to those exposed. On the outside of homes, meters have been installed on porches and decks where residents spend much of their outdoor leisure time. Many meters are located where children play in their yards, exposing them to strong radiation.

I have taken videos of some of these dangerous installations in my home town of Stratford. They can be viewed at these links:

You can hear each time there is a wireless burst and see the strength of the radiation on the meter. When the meter reads “one”, it means the radiation is over 2000 microwatts per square meter, which is the upper limit of this good quality meter.

If Smart Meters were really “smart”, they would store information and only send the relevant usage information when the information is needed, perhaps only once a month. They should probably be referred to as “Dangerous Meters”, because of the long term harm that they will cause to our health and the environment. The meters do not help to make the Ontario electrical system “green”, as they have added an additional danger caused by the radiation they emit. Perhaps the last thing that should have been added to the electrical distribution system is more high frequency electrical pollution.

Here are some important video links that help to explain the dangers caused by Smart Meters:

Many people suffer from Electro Hyper-Sensitivity (EHS), a condition/disability that is known and recognized by the World Health Organization and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I am in contact with many persons in Ontario and around the world who suffer from this condition. The Smart Meter initiative has virtually made Ontario into a no-go area for EHS sufferers because of the adverse health effects that it causes and the resultant difficulties it creates in their lives. Suffering from EHS can be painful, fatiguing, nauseating, and sometimes a life threatening experience, and the Ontario Government and Hydro One and other electricity providers should not be creating this distress. This Global television documentary about Wi Fi, demonstrates some of the adverse health effects caused by microwave radiation: http://www.youtube.com/safeschool#p/u/3/KN7VetsCR2I.

I suspect that there are many more Ontario citizens whose health has been badly affected, but have not realized that Smart Meters are the real cause.

For safety reasons, many people in Ontario have chosen to eliminate all possible wireless exposure from their property and their lives. With Smart Meters installed on their homes, they face high radiofrequency exposures in their homes 24 hours a day. EHS sufferers who attempt to alleviate their symptoms by moving to remote locations to avoid wireless systems and antennas are still subjected to strong pulses of microwave radiation from the provincially mandated Smart Meters. This radiation significantly affects hearts, brains, and neurological systems, which may cause long term damage to health. Some of the symptoms known to be caused by relatively low levels of microwave radiation are headache, sleep disruption, restlessness, tremors, cognitive impairments, tinnitus, increased cancer risk and cardiac problems.

To understand how dangerous it is to subject people and other living things to Smart Meter wireless radiation, please view this video interview with Barrie Trower, a retired electronic weapons scientist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjZZ29TtkJI&NR=1. Please watch the other ten parts of the interview as well, which can be accessed from the panel on the right hand side of the screen.
There are many other aspects of the Smart Meter initiative that cause serious concerns, such as:

· Cost

· Negligible electricity savings

· Privacy issues

· Electromagnetic interference

· Smart Meters causing fires

While you and your government may have had good intentions when the Smart Meter initiative was envisioned, your lack of public consultation, the false information that was presented about the safety aspects, and the way that this was hurriedly implemented at great expense to Ontario residents, have resulted in a terrible political decision that must be corrected.

It appears that your government may have been provided with false information about the potential benefits and the safety of Smart Meters and, because of that, there is a need for a Criminal Investigation. If you ask yourself why Hydro One themselves did not provide the safety evaluation report for the smart meters, and why they thought that one was needed, it should raise some serious questions. The massive electrical wiring system around Ontario is essentially the largest antenna system in the province it interacts with wireless signals and high frequencies. In order to operate the Hydro One system, it is essential to know about high frequencies, how they affect people and electrical equipment, and how to mitigate the problems they cause. As a large public corporation employing thousands, there is a duty and responsibility to know how high frequency pollution affects customers, employees, animals, and the environment. There are many scientific papers that describe the adverse health effects of wireless radiation and high frequency pollution. Hydro One has access to this research and should be fully aware of health implications. Hydro One has also received many public complaints about people and animals being harmed by electro magnetic radiation. Furthermore, an employee of the former Ontario Hydro, Karel Marha, practically “wrote the book” on how electro magnetic energy harms people and animals. He co-authored a book entitled Electromagnetic Fields and the Life Environment by Marha, Musil and Tuha, Institute of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Diseases, Prague, printed by San Francisco Press Inc.

You need to examine the reason why Hydro One did not write the report about the safety of the proposed Ontario Smart Meters and why a small US consulting company, Richard Tell Associates, was used: http://www.hydroone.com/MyHome/MyAccount/MyMeter/Documents/Smart_Meters_Report_on_RFE.pdf.
The Tell website states, “Our surveys are considered by many to be the most informative, detailed and comprehensive in the industry”. But, look at the information and try to find any references to the thousands of scientific documents that indicate adverse biological effects, or cancer from this type of radiation. The most important information about health is either ignored or greatly downplayed and, instead, the report simply references Safety Code 6, an outdated Health Canada guide that does not adequately protect Canadians from biological effects. The Tell document is not a detailed and comprehensive report. Rather, it appears to be a rubber stamp for a dangerous technology. Part of the Tell report states,“The small transmitters that are used in this system transmit with very low power and transmit very infrequently”. This is simply false, as you can see from the videos above and this report - http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/?p=343. The transmissions are quite powerful and frequent, enough to harm and seriously affect many people. Why was the report updated in 2010 and the original removed from the Hydro One web site? Surely the purpose of the report was to show system safety before implementation, not make excuses afterwards?

On May 31, 2011, ,the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). At about the same time, a health committee of the Council of Europe examined scientific evidence and recommended significant precautions for exposure to electromagnetic radiation and, in particular, reduction of exposure to children. The recommendations were ratified by the forty-six member countries. At a time when important warnings are being given about electromagnetic radiation, Ontario is just finishing final installations, ensuring that Ontario residents will have no-where to go to avoid this great danger.

I suspect that Hydro One knew about the dangers of microwave radiation, but were not willing to write a false report to state that Smart Meters were safe and do not cause biological harm. If they had written such a report, they would be lying and would be subject to Canadian Criminal Law. If Hydro One officials were, indeed, not aware of the health effects of electro magnetic radiation, then they should not be trusted to manage a light bulb, let alone the entire electrical distribution system in Ontario. The fact that Hydro One has failed to warn the Ontario Government about the dangers of microwave radiation from Smart Meters and proceeded with the installation of these devices throughout Ontario indicates that officials should be investigated for the offence of criminal negligence.

The installation of dangerous smart meters throughout the province has been a huge financial cost to the citizens of Ontario, but there may yet be an even bigger cost to health and the health care system as a result of this plan. An investigation should look carefully at those involved in the Smart Meter initiative to determine who pushed the ideas forward, their motives, who may have profited, and whether “kick backs” were involved.

As for a Public Inquiry, it is needed to:

1. Discover the best method of making the electrical system as safe as possible

2. Find out who was responsible for this ill conceived initiative

3. Make up for the lack of public consultation at the beginning of the process

4. Consider whether money can be retrieved from those who have profited

Regardless of the election results on Thursday, there is a need to make Ontario safe again from the danger introduced from Smart Meters. Your government created this dangerous situation and you have a duty to start the clean-up process.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

One in four households will be driven into fuel poverty if the Government pursues controversial green energy targets, ministers have been warned. ‘Radical policy change’ may be necessary to protect millions of struggling families from biggest household price shock since the 1970s, according to City analysts. The warning comes as middle-income homes are already suffering an ‘unprecedented collapse’ in living standards as inflation and poor wages wipe thousands off incomes. --Sean Poulter, Daily Mail, 12 October 2011

WHEN people on average earnings start to fall into “fuel poverty” it is clear that Britain is in the grip of a living standards crisis. Such a situation demands radical government action. Politicians must ensure they are doing everything possible to relieve the burden on hard-pressed families rather than adding to it. So it is time for Britain to abandon unilateral and unrealistic targets for cutting CO2 emissions, especially where they will only be achieved by investing a fortune in prohibitively expensive “renewable” sources of energy. --Daily Express, 12 October 2011

The Government should now consider a complete moratorium on green energy legislation that threatens to impose huge additional costs on all those who are already facing spiralling power bills. -–Benny Peiser, Daily Mai, 9 July 2011

One way for the government to make a real difference to energy costs would be to abandon the “renewables obligation” and the carbon floor price. This would cut bills by 13 per cent from 2015, according to Deutsche Bank. --David Blair, Financial Times, 11 October 2011

A steady rise in electricity and gas charges could force the government to reconsider its energy policy, said analysts, particularly an official target to spend £200bn on new infrastructure by 2020, including a big expansion of wind power. “If the rate of increase continues, it would concentrate minds even further and energy costs would rise potentially to the top of the public’s agenda and therefore of the political agenda,” said David Hunter, energy analyst at M&C Energy Group, a consultancy. Mr Hunter described the cost as “eye-watering” and said investors would weigh the possibility of the government reneging on its proposed incentives. --David Blair, Financial Times, 11 October 2011

Are we absolutely certain that the main cause of global warming is carbon and has nothing to do with the output of the Sun, or any of the other theories? With the credibility of some of the data of those dealing with climate change at least open to question, are we absolutely certain that we can afford all these precautions that may not even turn out to be necessary? It would be unfortunate if history recalled that we solved a problem that in the end did not require a solution by tipping the economy into depression. --Lord Young, The Times, 12 October 2011

Monday, October 10, 2011

In California, we are told by PG&E that it is being mandated by the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC). (It is probably the same in other states, but maybe their PUC has a different name.) However, it is really being mandated across the nation by the federal government, and stimulus money is providing the funding. However, one finds out that the law asking for smart meters and a smart grid, Energy Policy Act or 2005, only mandates the utilities to "offer" the meters and to install them "upon customer request.” The choice is still supposed to be ours! Smart Meters are not just in the United States. They are being mandated in Europe by the European Union, and in other parts of the world by their federal governments. By doing more research, one finds out that smart meters are part of “smart growth” or “sustainable development” or “Agenda 21,” a plan devised by the United Nations in 1992, and “symbolically” signed by President Bush Sr. Even though the U.S. Senate never ratified it, President Clinton implemented the treaty by executive order # 12852 in 1993. The ultimate goal of Agenda 21 and its various programs is to exercise more and more control over our lives and property using the excuse of “saving the environment or saving the planet.”

Friday, October 7, 2011

"THE eco-dream of a village school turned into a Friday 13th nightmare when high winds destroyed their wind turbine.

Two blades flew off from the 15m tall turbine in Gorran School’s playing field during the bad weather earlier this month. The turbine was part of the school’s £53,000 plan to generate its own electricity,

On the afternoon of Friday, November 13, the school was advised to turn on the brakes to stop the turbine, but the brakes failed, causing two blades to detach in the early hours of Saturday morning.

A concerned parent said: “Thank God it happened when the children were not out on the field. Looking at the size and weight of those rotor blades, I dread to think what would have happened if they had snapped off while they were there.”

Over a quarter of UK households are struggling to deal with energy bills, according to the latest research.

Following this year’s 21% price hike, which added an extra £224 to the annual dual fuel bill, millions of homes across the country are finding it difficult to afford both gas and electricity.

A price comparison website found that 32% of households believe energy is already ‘unaffordable’ in the UK. A further 69% said that the government has not got it right when it comes to affordable energy and ‘going green’.

More and more homes are facing financial turmoil as the cost of living soars. The government plans to invest £200 billion into a new carbon reduction policy which could result in even higher energy bills over the next decade.

Despite this, and the government’s plans to ease financial burdens on UK families, many people confessed that they could not afford an increase as low as £30 a month.

The average household energy bill now stands at £1,293 per year, which is 14% short of the affordability threshold.

£1,500 a year spent on energy would be the absolute tipping point for households as 77% confessed that any more would send them over the edge.

Ann Robinson, Director of Consumer Policy at uSwitch, commented; "This is a wake-up call and the clearest evidence yet that the UK is on the brink of an affordability crisis when it comes to household energy. We are now just £207 or 14% away from hitting an affordability ceiling after which consumers will start rationing their usage as though they are living in the third world.”

Many Brits are already stretched and 30% of people admitted they could go without adequate heating when their bill reaches £1,000 a year. This percentage almost doubled if the bill increased to £1,500 a year.

Almost 7 million UK households are living in fuel poverty and a third of people claim that energy is not affordable in the UK.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

"The Ontario Green Act promised to create 50,000 jobs. Our study concludes that each of those jobs will require a ratepayer subsidy of $200,000 annually, which effectively means that — as the LTEP reaches fruition — $10-billion will be extracted from ratepayers each year.

For the average ratepayer, an annual electricity bill will escalate from $1,700 per year to $2,800 by 2015 and by the time the renewables envisaged in the LTEP are largely in place (expected in 2018) an average ratepayer will be paying in excess of $4,000 annually — well over a doubling. Put another way Ontario’s ratepayers will be paying in excess of 40¢ per kWh, placing them on a par with Denmark, which suffers the highest cost of electricity in the developed world."

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

"So we paid $20 to export MWh's we paid around $60 for. We usually only get $30 anyway. The running 12-month total on that difference is about $500 million.

Se we paid $20 to export MWh's for wind production we paid about $135/MWh anyway. That loss, when selling it under $40/MWh, is averaging about $1 million a day anyway - $2.4 million isn't that exceptional."

Friday, September 23, 2011

Here is what our Premier McGuinity has done for Ontario in the past seven years.

As difficult as it is to believe...... he had a no tax increase election message/campaign-which got him elected!

Dalton McGuinty -

Please Distribute To All Ontarians...

Now that we've seen what can happen in B.C. (with the recent resignation of former Premier Campbell), it's time to address Ontario 's situation. Here's a historical reminder of what our Government has done for us in recent years.

Just so you don't forget...

1. He has increased all the licensing fees from your car to your boat including fishing and hunting.

2. He introduced the health care premium (not called a tax) and some couples pay as much as $1,500.00 a year.

3. He has put an ECO tax on many containers such as paint cans and window washer fluid and most people still don't realize it until they see the bill - he kept that one real quiet.

4. He put a disposal tax on all electronics.

5. He put the disposal tax back on tires.

6. And now he has passed the HST tax - the largest tax on the province ever and the only other tax in Ontario that ever came close to this in the past was the health care premium. He passed this bill even though 76% of the people in Ontario were against it. This HST will provide the Province with an additional THREE BILLION dollars a year.

7. Soon, July 15th, we will all have our S.M.A.R.T. Meters on which we will have to pay perpetual rent and will end up doing our laundry in the middle of the night. We are also going to pay big time for air conditioning from now on because when we need it the most it will be in the prime time of usage.

8. Let us not forget the E-health scandal with 1.2 billion dollars wasted and paid out to friends and relatives.

What was Mr. McGuinty’ s answer to this? “Well, if the people of Ontario don't like it, they can show it in the next election”. Nice attitude. But let's remember as that day approaches.

This after he fired the CEO and then gave her a severance package of $300,000 - not bad for only being on the job for seven months.

9. And what about the SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS windmill power plant contract that he awarded to KOREA?

One would think there was some place in Canada or North America that could have built these.

10. He also closed the emergency rooms in Port Colburne and Fort Erie because there is not enough money. There have been two deaths since then because by the time they got to St. Catharine's it was too late. But he then awards a hospital in Toronto three million dollars. Of course, that was in the riding where there just happens to be a by-election to replace George Smitherman!

11. He has taken the richest most prosperous province in Canada down to one of the 'Have-Nots'.And, over the past six & one half years, has increased the budget deficit from $5.6 Billion dollars to TWENTY SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS and he still has a few months to go.

12. And don't forget his nice little salary increase of $40,000.00 a year

- millions of people in the province don't earn even half of that.

13. Have we forgotten all the MPP'S who also got a 14% increase? And now that they've had their increases he comes out with a new budget to freeze all provincial employees wages for two years. A bit late don't you think?

14. He increased the hydro tax by 10% in April of 2010.

15. He has increased the tax on liquor and wine by 10% in May of 2010.

16. He continues to permanently 'Blight' landscapes across the province with unsightly wind turbines.

17. But, Mr. McGuinty will retire with his nice comfortable pension and all his benefits paid.

18. No indexing not even minimal, indexing for WSIB recipients.

I hope this gets passed around the province of Ontario and everybody remembers the way we got screwed by Mr. McGuinty and the Liberal party.

Remember - not one Liberal MPP had enough guts to vote against any of the above.

And all pensioners got no raise at all over the past 18 months!

And remember, he’s screwed us so royally that by voting him out, he’s entitled to pension that we also pay for!

Bottom line is a single pedestal of panels only provides enough power for half a normal home's consumption. And YOU are paying them $10,000 per year for that. So if you are roaming around the province and see 2 pedestals on a farm, that's providing less than the home requires on that same farm. Oh, and if the panels are horizontal looking straight up, it means they are not connected to the grid because H1 has not been able to upgrade the area. Some have been like that for more than a year.

My prediction stands. In 2-3 years the vast majority of these panel owners will be bankrupt.

You will pay a LOT more for power. There is NO SAVINGS to be had with fixed rates. These retailers MUST include the Global Adjustment (See IESO for price) which can DOUBLE your rates. Today the GA is 4.46 ¢/kWh while the hourly price is 3.56 ¢/kWh. This is because we have a glut of power on line, and when that happens the hourly price drops, and the GA increases.

So when retailer reps come to the door to try and sign you up, tell them to piss off.

Friday, September 2, 2011

Wonder why Ontario hydro rates are so high? There are many reasons for soaring electricity rates, but one that hasn’t received anywhere near enough attention is the very lavish pay and benefits of the hydro utilities’ staff.

Recently, there has been quite a ruckus over a number of pensions in the extended public sector. In British Columbia, it was revealed that a senior executive at BC Ferries was eligible to receive a lifetime pension valued at $315,000 after only nine years of employment there. In Quebec, Hydro-Québec claimed that its pension costs last year were only $21-million, but its financial reports showed that taxpayers had pumped $646-million into the pension plan. Stay tuned — we will hear many more such horror stories as a result of decades of pension underfunding, early retirements and rich pensions of public sector workers and those in the extended public sector.

As a result of some of these outrageous recent examples, we decided to investigate the Ontario electricity situation. A recent executive compensation report from Ontario Power Generation (OPG) shows it is on track to pay its CEO a lifetime pension of $720,000 annually or $60,000 per month or $2,000 per day starting at age 65. Assuming an average lifespan, the CEO will collect total pension payments valued at about $17.6-million. Various other executives at OPG are shown to be eligible to receive pensions of $490,000, $330,000 and $310,000 per year according to the OPG report.

This seems to be part of a government trend in Ontario. Last year, the Sunshine List showed more than 11,000 workers making more than $100,000 a year at Hydro One and OPG. When fully eligible, they will receive a pension of at least $70,000 (as public-sector workers typically receive a pension valued at 70% of final salary), including CPP. Current data show that, for a person retiring today at age 55, their life expectancy is now 84. This means that the numerous Sunshine List employees will each collect a pension of at least $2-million.

Defenders of these very generous pensions always claim that these employees contribute their fair share into the pension plans, and so deserve them. As taxpayers, we would normally think a 50-50 split of contributions would be fair, with employees contributing 50% and taxpayers matching it. But over the past five years alone, taxpayers have pumped $1.3-billion into the plan, while employees have contributed only $368-million. Not so fair and sure to create serious pension tensions when taxpayers find out what is really happening in these pension Ponzi schemes.

With all this money having gone into the plan recently, one would think that these pension contributions would mean the plan is solvent. Not so. OPG still had an estimated pension deficiency on a wind-up basis of $2.8-billion with the last valuation that was due on Jan. 1, 2011. Since the report has not yet been released, it is likely the shortfall is even worse than the $2.8-billion reported.

Unfortunately, the story does not stop here. Both Hydro and OPG pay for generous benefits for its retired employees — benefits that are rarely if ever seen in the private sector. Called Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEBs) in the lingo of pension experts, these allowances are primarily for enhanced health care for employees after they retire. OPG owes a debt to its future retired employees of $1.9-billion in OPEBs, and Hydro One owes almost $1-billion. Given expectations that healthcare costs will skyrocket in the next few years, the real costs faced will very likely be much higher than even these significant amounts.

This is only one narrative regarding the hydro utilities in one province. Multiply this times so many other arm’s-length government agencies at all levels of government, across all the provinces, and you start to get an idea of the massive obligations that will soon fall on private-sector taxpayers and ratepayers for utilities like hydro. Think hydro rates are outrageous now? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Thursday, September 1, 2011

"A review of the 2010 Ontario Public Accounts reveals that McGuinty’s Minister of Energy has quietly approved charging Ontario families a new “smart meter service fee”. This new tax is being charged to cover the costs of the “Smart Metering Entity” that runs the smart meters which themselves are nothing more than government-sponsored tax machines. The new Smart Meter Tax will be applied on top of the current costs of the smart meter scheme – which already charges families $200 per household to install, and drives up family hydro rates by 150%. One of Dalton McGuinty’s energy bureaucracies is already budgeting to collect this tax which will cost Ontario families at least $132 million dollars over four years. "

TORONTO — Today Ontario PC Leader Tim Hudak was joined by Ontario PC candidates Mike Yen and Karlene Nation to expose Dalton “The Tax Man” McGuinty’s latest attempt to sneak in a new tax on Ontario families. A review of the 2010 Ontario Public Accounts reveals that McGuinty’s Minister of Energy has quietly approved charging Ontario families a new “smart meter service fee”. This new tax is being charged to cover the costs of the “Smart Metering Entity” that runs the smart meters which themselves are nothing more than government-sponsored tax machines.

The new Smart Meter Tax will be applied on top of the current costs of the smart meter scheme – which already charges families $200 per household to install, and drives up family hydro rates by 150%. One of Dalton McGuinty’s energy bureaucracies is already budgeting to collect this tax which will cost Ontario families at least $132 million dollars over four years.

While Dalton McGuinty seeks new and creative ways to force Ontario families to pay higher taxes, a Tim Hudak government will cancel the secret Smart Meter Tax and close the new hydro bureaucracy associated with it. In addition, an Ontario PC government will unplug mandatory smart meter time-of-use pricing.

An Ontario PC government will provide Ontario families with further relief by removing the HST from hydro and home heating bills and removing the debt retirement charge from home hydro bills – which will save the typical Ontario family $275 per year.

Notice the power output for each month of the year (selecting year in the drop down). Winter months are around 800kwH a month, while the summer is 2500. An average home uses some 3500 for the month in winter, and about 3000 for the summer, depending on how hot the summer is.

This chart shows the consumption of an average home for the year, and the solar output for the same months:

Month

Home
Consumption

Solar Production

% of consumption

Jan

3739

856.2

23%

Feb

3209

1113.2

35%

Mar

4466

1754.8

39%

Apr

2126

1330.1

63%

May

2193

2021

92%

Jun

3110

2545

82%

Jul

3000

2915.6

97%

Aug

3340

1449.9

43%

Sep

3030

Oct

1873

Nov

2102

Dec

3008

35,196.0

13,985.8

27,971.6

Projected

So you can see that a double pillar of 235 panels will not produce as much power as an average home consumes. This means the home owner of the panels would use more power than his panels provide. Thus these panel owners do not have a net contribution to the grid since they use more power for their homes than the panels provide.

The best part of this is how much they are making compared to how much they are paying for their own consumption.

Month

Home
Consumption

Consumption
c/kWh

Solar
revenue

Revenue c/kwh

Jan

$204.82

$0.05

$686.67

$0.80

Feb

$166.29

$0.05

$892.79

$0.80

Mar

$224.87

$0.05

$1,407.35

$0.80

Apr

$68.45

$0.03

$1,066.74

$0.80

May

$97.92

$0.04

$1,620.84

$0.80

Jun

$168.93

$ 0.05

$2,041.09

$0.80

Jul

$151.42

$0.05

$2,338.31

$0.80

Aug

$168.03

$0.05

$1,162.82

$0.80

Sep

$174.54

$0.06

Oct

$85.26

$0.05

Nov

$92.94

$0.04

Dec

$146.24

$0.05

$1,749.71

$11,216.61

$22,433.22

Projected

$20,683.51

Profit

So these people are paying about $1750 a year for their grid power, and getting some $22,000 for their solar power. But since their net contribution is zero, it means you, the rate payers, are paying these people $20,000 per year for NOTHING! You are paying these solar contracts to essentially be off the grid.

Can someone please find an argument that would show me how this can possibly be a net benefit to our grid.

Proposed projects will still have to get environmental approval, show that they have a purchase agreement with an Ontario manufacturer and submit a financing plan before they can proceed.

Creating a clean energy sector and adding 50,000 jobs to the economy by the end of 2012 is a key plank in the Liberals’ election platform. The Liberals say they’ve created 20,000 jobs to date.

Peter Tabuns of the New Democratic Party shrugged off the significance of the announcement.

He said many renewable energy developers can’t connect their projects to the grid. Without connections, the projects can’t deliver power or get revenue.

“I think that’s the largest ongoing issue,” he said.

Robert Hornung of the Canadian Wind Energy Association offered cautious endorsement of the changes.

“It reduces project development risk,” said Hornung. “It clarifies in essence what’s required to firm up FIT contracts. That greater certainty makes it easier for them to go and secure financing.”
The association was polling its members yesterday to see how they reacted to the changes.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

“In fact, the NDP’s plan creates a more certain future for renewable energy in Ontario then the Liberal plan, which places a moratorium on all renewable power projects starting in 2018 when expensive new nuclear plants are projected to come on line.”

10% Government bribe (enticing people to re-elect the Liberals) $18.41 credit.

This is a couple of the replies, be seated as you read them.

"Wow those delivery charges are outrageous! We have a generation and transmission charge of about $12 and $5 respectively, our electric usage was 568 Kwh (down from 631 last year same time period) for a total of $23.87 for electric ($47.98 after all BS charges) with a total bill of $73.84 including gas. I sympathize, but can't help but think there are ways to cut usage more."Jerry, NCal

"From May 19th to June 17th I used 208 kwh, for my 1400 sq. ft. home. I didn't skimp and do without to reach that number; I could have worked a lot harder to minimize electricity use. My charge for the power, which includes many small components, delivery charge, taxes, dam removal charges (very small), Columbia River benefits (a rebate), etc. is $29.13."Susan, Oregon

Friday, July 8, 2011

Who you vote for is up to you, of course. I noted a while back I was using a back door to get some changes to the power system. Now we are close to the election I will tell you what that was. I have been on the Energy Policy Advisory Committee for the Ontario Progressive Conservatives. This group developed the current policy that Tim Hudak is presenting to the public. I cannot take credit for this policy, as those in the group shared my views, so it was a collective effort. The group was well represented, and had great research and reporting done for the Party to consider.

As for my plan for a new power conglomeration, it was submitted to the group and it was considered. How much of it will survive to become policy is now in the hands of the Party and the electorate. I will not stop my advocacy for this new system. Though some on the committee did not agree with my proposal, some did. Alternatives proposed are not that far off from what I have proposed. The big one being less government interference in the system. More autonomy in the organizations, and a restructuring of the organizations. I will continue to push for my proposal, even after the election.

Now that I have exposed my political bent, I do have a comment about the NDP's position to unite the "alphabet soup" of power organizations into HydroOne, essentially recreating Ontario Hydro.

Big mistake. Why on earth would you want to reward H1? If anything, H1 needs to be punished for its predatory behavior towards customers, and have its billing transferred to the IESO. H1 should look after the transmission system and that's it.

According to the polls, and the last Federal Election, looks like the Liberals are in serious trouble. Bye Bye Dalton!

We will stop the expensive energy experiments that are driving up hydro bills.A Tim Hudak government will end the Liberal government’s schemes that have families subsidize hydro prices. We will end the feed-in tariff program that, in some cases, pays up to 15 times the usual cost of the hydro. Hardworking farmers and other Ontarians who signed contracts to host energy production on their property will have their contracts honoured. But there will be no more of these deals.We will end the king of all secret, sweetheart deals – the $7 billion Samsung deal – that happened without a competitive process or a guarantee of job creation targets. Building our green energy sector cannot be achieved by writing a cheque to one single foreign-owned multinational corporation that was handed every advantage.

We will give families a voice in how hydro rates are set.Families understand that their hydro bill goes up if they leave the lights on. But why does it skyrocket for no apparent reason? The Ontario Energy Board sets rates, but this body has lost its independence. We will restore that independence by ending the day-to-day political interference of the last eight years. And we will establish a powerful Consumer Advocate at the OEB. The Consumer Advocate will represent only consumers. Not the bureaucrats. Not the energy sector. Not the special interests.

For any FIT Contract holders who do not yet have NTP at the time of a change in government, a PC Government would exercise its rights under Sections 2.4(a), (e) and (f) of the FIT Contract to terminate the FIT Contract, return the Completion and Performance Security, and pay the Supplier its reasonable Pre-Construction Development Costs (upon delivery of written documentation thereof).

Thursday, July 7, 2011

A quarter of Brits are living in fuel poverty as energy bills rocket by Ruki Sayid, Daily Mirror 6/07/2011

As energy prices go through the roof, shocking figures reveal one in four families has been plunged into fuel poverty.

Single parents are the hardest hit with 39% of mother or father and child households struggling to pay bills.

The figures are higher than the one in five first estimated and show for the first time wealthier families have also been hammered by spiralling fuel costs with 15% of middle classes now fuel poor.

Research from price comparison website uSwitch found the number would leap to one in three if housing costs were added in.

It means at least 18 million people are spending 10% or more of their take home pay on energy bills. Based on the new way of calculating fuel poverty, 47% of working class families and 22% of the middle classes fall into this bracket.

A quarter of families with a stay-at-home parent are fuel poor but uSwitch argues this figure would soar to 44% if mortgages or rents were included. The number of fuel poor single parent families would jump from 39% to 52% while pensioner numbers would rise from 33% to 36%.

According to the website, fuel bills have rocketed by 71% in the past five years rising from £660 a year in 2006 to £1,131 today.

And there’s worse to come as from next month, 2.4 million Scottish Power customers will be paying 10% more for electricity and 19% more for gas.

British Gas is expected to announce similar hikes ahead of parent company Centrica unveiling its results on July 28 with rivals following suit.

Consumer Focus warned as many as 6 million could be forced to choose between a hot meal or heating their homes this winter.

William Baker, Head of Fuel Poverty Policy added: “Rising energy prices will lead to a bigger bills and a huge upswing in fuel poverty. This will mean an increasing percentage of our population, especially those on low incomes, are more likely to live in colder or damp houses or face higher debt.”

Monday, June 27, 2011

"Job creation should not be a goal of environmental policy, no more than it should be a policy goal in the fields of health or national security. If, instead of hiring people, we could use magic to stop disease, crime and environmental degradation, we would. Pointing to jobs ‘created’ to fix these problems is an error that Frédéric Bastiat identified in his ‘parable of the broken window’. Broken windows generate work for glaziers, but that doesn’t mean that breaking windows will increase national income. "

Read it all here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/stephen-gordon/green-jobs-shrewd-pr-bad-economics/article2076663/

Friday, June 17, 2011

"I am very disappointed at the downward path the AMS has been following for the last 10-15 years in its advocacy of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis. The society has officially taken a position many of us AMS members do not agree with. We believe that humans are having little or no significant influence on the global climate and that the many Global Circulation Climate Model (GCMs) results and the four IPCC reports do not realistically give accurate future projections. To take this position which so many of its members do not necessarily agree with shows that the AMS is following more of a political than a scientific agenda. "

Sir Roger Carr warns in an interview that the Coalition must give "some sort of support" over rising energy costs to UK manufacturers or else risk seeing businesses relocate abroad with the consequential loss of jobs.

"Not every country in the world has the same commitment to climate change [as the UK] and therefore you may feel commercially disadvantaged," Sir Roger says, adding: "That gives you cause for thought as to where you want to invest."

Thursday, June 16, 2011

"“A perverse incentive,” Ontario Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller said this week of the 10-per-cent rebate that Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals have given homeowners on their energy bills. And well it might be, from a conservation standpoint, since the “clean energy benefit” gives the most relief to consumers who use the most energy."

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

This guy has got to go. This past winter Gord Miller was on TVO's The Agenda. He stated with a straight face, very seriously, that power rates need to increase by FIVE TIMES in order for people to be forced to conserve.

Monday, June 13, 2011

OTTAWA — Ontario appears poised for a changing of the guard when the next provincial election takes place, with a new poll suggesting the Progressive Conservatives have expanded their lead to unseat Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals.

According to the exclusive Ipsos Reid poll, the PCs — led by Tim Hudak — have the support of 40% of decided voters, up two points from the start of the year. The Liberals, meanwhile have dropped one point in that time and currently have the support of 34% of decided Ontarians.

NEW DELHI: The future of the Kyoto Protocol is in peril and the global compact could end up being an empty shell by 2012.

Major developed countries including Japan, Russia and Canada have refused to be part of the protocol in its second phase and to commit targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions under it. Europe has also changed the goalposts. It is now suggesting that it would not sign on to the protocol unless emerging economies, including India and China, take strong targets as well under a new deal.

Under the first phase of Kyoto Protocol, the developed countries had emission reduction targets running up to 2012. The sole exception was the US which steadfastly refused to sign it. Under the protocol, developing countries had no such commitments.

From The GWPF, newsbytes on the subject of UK Businesses Threaten To Flee Abroad To Escape Green Energy Levies

British industry’s ability to compete with companies overseas is under threat from punitive green energy costs, the new president of the CBI has told The Sunday Telegraph. Sir Roger Carr warns in an interview that the Coalition must give “some sort of support” over rising energy costs to UK manufacturers or else risk seeing businesses relocate abroad with the consequential loss of jobs. His comments – ahead of a CBI energy conference on Tuesday – come amid growing concern over the cost of renewable energy subsidies and so-called ‘green stealth taxes’. –The Sunday Telegraph, 12 June 2011

Saturday, June 11, 2011

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), who is responsible for managing the electricity grid in Ontario, in December 2010 published “design principles” for integrating renewables into the grid. The primary purpose of this “Renewable Integration,” labeled SE-91 www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/consult/se91/se91-20101216-Minutes.pdf, was to ensure stability to the grid by including the impact on surplus baseload generation of those renewables. This is meant to ensure no blackout or brownouts. IESO has predicted that with the additional 3000 MW of Feed-in Tariff (FIT) projects installed and operating, the Ontario grid would experience surplus conditions roughly 9% of the time based on average wind output.

The proposal put out to stakeholders was to basically determine the viability of forecasting production of electricity (principally wind), determine who should pay for that forecasting and to constrain or shut down the supply of power when it wasn’t needed and, in the event of the latter, how to honour the Ontario Power Authority’s feed-in-tariff contracts that guaranteed payment to the renewable operators. Logically these issues should have been considered and taken into account when the Green Energy Act was passed and the Energy Minister issued directives to the OPA for implementation of the FIT program!

Objections from stakeholders were filed in respect to the SE-91 initiative and as expected the principal objections were from the industrial wind turbine developers. They wanted full compensation when they constrained their production and they didn’t want to pay for the weather forecasting equipment.

IESO released its “Final Design Principles” www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/consult/se91/se91-20110302-Responses.pdf March 8, 2011 and will now develop the final market rules governing those design principles.

The rules will require the renewable operators to forecast wind production, which means they will need to add meteorological forecasting to their industrial wind developments at a estimated cost of $300-million. Those costs will be “recovered from consumers,” according to the Final Design Principles.

Principle 9 of the Design Principles states; “Variable generators will be entitled to Congestion Management Settlement Credit (CMSC) payments.” This simple principle is stating that wind developers will be paid for power that is not delivered to the grid and the payments will be at the OPA contracted rates of $135 per MWh (13.5 cents per kWh) for wind and $713 per Mwh (71.3 cents per kWh) for solar. In the event the wholesale price is reasonable, however, IESO will have the ability to call for the almost immediate delivery of the power to the grid which will marginally reduce the costs to the ratepayers.

So the integration of renewables to the grid under the IESO design principles will cost ratepayers; firstly for forecasting the power that won’t be delivered to the grid 9% of the time and secondly for constrained power. That 9% of constrained power by 2012 with 4400 MW of installed capacity will cost Ontario ratepayers over $125-million annually for power that won’t be delivered to the grid or power even one 40-watt light bulb.

Some plan, some principles!

Parker Gallant is a former Canadian banker who didn’t like what he was seeing in his Ontario electricity bills.